Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jamesy Bertilus is an immigration detainee held at the Central Valley Annex who filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of California. The petition raised legal issues that Judge Daniel J. Calabretta said the court had already addressed in earlier decisions, which the order identifies by caption: Garcia Mariagua v. Chestnut, Ortega v. Noem, Lopez v. Lyons, M.B. v. Noem, and Oli v. Andrews. The order does not restate those decisions' reasoning, and they were not part of the materials reviewed, so this account is limited to what the October 9, 2026 order itself says.
Acting under 28 U.S.C. section 2243, the court directed Respondents to file a return showing cause why it should not grant the writ and order Petitioner's release based on the alleged violation of his due process rights. That framing is the court's description of the claim at the show-cause stage. In their return, Respondents conceded that Petitioner has a statutory right to a bond hearing.
The court then stated that Petitioner's criminal history justifies providing him with a prompt post-deprivation hearing, citing J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, a 2025 Eastern District of California decision. The order does not describe the criminal history, the length of detention, or the specific statutory provision under which Petitioner is held.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition, stating that it did so for the reasons given in its prior orders. The order is therefore a grant of habeas relief that adopts earlier reasoning by reference, and its own text does not set out the constitutional analysis.
The relief is a conditional remedy rather than outright release. Within fourteen days, Respondents must give Petitioner a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. At that hearing the government bears the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Petitioner may have counsel present. Only if the hearing is not provided within that time must Respondents immediately release him from custody.
Respondents must file a status report within five days after the hearing confirming that it took place. The clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for Petitioner, and the order states that it resolves all pending motions. The order does not say what happens if the Immigration Judge denies bond, and it does not require the status report to describe the outcome; it asks only for confirmation that a hearing was conducted.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief by incorporating its earlier decisions, so the reasoning behind the due process ruling must be found in those prior orders rather than in this short order.
- Respondents conceded that Petitioner has a statutory right to a bond hearing, which narrowed the dispute over whether a hearing was owed.
- The ordered hearing places the burden on the government to prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, and Petitioner may have counsel present.
- Release is ordered only if the bond hearing is not provided within fourteen days; the order does not itself order release or decide whether bond will be granted.
- The government must report within five days after the hearing that it occurred, and the case is closed with judgment entered for Petitioner.
Why It Matters
This order shows how the Eastern District of California is handling a recurring category of immigration habeas petitions: when it has already ruled on the legal question, it resolves later petitions in a short order that cites its earlier decisions and prescribes a standard remedy. The remedy features a time-limited bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, a clear and convincing evidence burden on the government, and the right to counsel.
Its weight is limited. It is a district court order in one petitioner's case, it is not a published appellate opinion, and it does not bind other courts. Readers should also note what remains open: the outcome of the bond hearing, the content of the earlier orders, and the specific facts of Petitioner's detention and criminal history, none of which the order describes. Practitioners should consult the cited prior decisions before relying on this order for the underlying legal rule.